HistoryExtra Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast 2026-09-30T08:11:11.000Z https://www.historyextra.com/author/racheldinning/feed/atom Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[Was Elizabeth I's reign really a 'golden age'?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/elizazbeth-i-reign-golden-age-podcast/ 2026-09-30T08:11:11.000Z 2026-09-30T08:11:11.000Z As Elizabeth I entered the final chapter of her reign, questions of ageing, succession, and legacy loomed large.
In this final episode of our four-part Sunday Series on the Tudor monarch, Rachel Dinning is joined by historian Nicola Tallis to explore the queen’s later years, her reluctance to name an heir, and the political uncertainty that followed her death. They also examine how Elizabeth’s image was carefully crafted in her lifetime and beyond, helping to transform her into the enduring symbol of the ‘Golden Age’ that still captivates popular imagination today.
Watch now, or listen ad-free below:
View Green Video on the source website
Want to know more about Elizabeth I and her remarkable reign? Rachel Dinning rounds up essential reading from the HistoryExtra archive that explores Elizabeth's early life, rise to power, court intrigues, and the legacy that made her one of history's most iconic monarchs. Go beyond the podcast.
]]> Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[Elizabeth’s enemies: plots, rivals and the Spanish Armada]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/elizabeth-i-enemies-podcast/ 2026-09-23T08:11:06.000Z 2026-09-23T08:11:06.000Z Elizabeth I’s reign was defined by constant threat, both at home and abroad.
In this third episode of our four-part Sunday Series on the Tudor monarch, Rachel Dinning is joined by historian Nicola Tallis to examine the rivals and conspiracies that endangered the queen's security on the throne.
From the long and fraught conflict with her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots to the intricate spy networks that uncovered treasonous plots, they chart the mounting tensions that culminated in one of the most famous maritime perils England ever faced: the Spanish Armada of 1588.
Watch now or listen ad-free below:
View Green Video on the source website
Want to know more about Elizabeth I and her remarkable reign? Rachel Dinning rounds up essential reading from the HistoryExtra archive that explores Elizabeth's early life, rise to power, court intrigues, and the legacy that made her one of history's most iconic monarchs. Go beyond the podcast.
]]> Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[Elizabeth I: a woman in a man’s world]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/elizabeth-i-episode-two/ 2026-09-16T08:00:13.000Z 2026-09-16T08:00:12.000Z By 1559, Elizabeth I had secured the crown – but holding on to power would prove far more challenging. In this second episode of our four-part Sunday Series on the Tudor monarch, Rachel Dinning is joined by historian Nicola Tallis to explore Elizabeth’s early reign, from her coronation and the urgent task of stabilising a divided kingdom to the pressures of ruling as a female monarch in a deeply patriarchal society.
They also examine the influential figures who shaped her court and the high-stakes marriage negotiations that helped forge the enduring image of the ‘Virgin Queen’.
Watch now, or listen ad-free below:
View Green Video on the source website
Want to know more about Elizabeth I and her remarkable reign? Rachel Dinning rounds up essential reading from the HistoryExtra archive that explores Elizabeth's early life, rise to power, court intrigues, and the legacy that made her one of history's most iconic monarchs. Go beyond the podcast.
]]> Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[Young Elizabeth I: the making of a queen]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/elizabeth-i-episode-one/ 2026-09-09T08:00:13.000Z 2026-09-09T08:00:13.000Z Elizabeth I is one of history's most iconic monarchs, but her path to the throne was anything but secure.
In this first episode of our four-part Sunday Series on the 16th-century royal, Rachel Dinning is joined by historian Nicola Tallis to explore Elizabeth’s turbulent early years – from the execution of her mother, Anne Boleyn, to the political and personal dangers she faced as she navigated childhood, illegitimacy, and the treacherous Tudor succession. Together, they uncover how these formative experiences helped shape the woman who would become a formidable queen.
Watch now or listen ad-free, below:
View Green Video on the source website
Want to know more about Elizabeth I and her remarkable reign? Rachel Dinning rounds up essential reading from the HistoryExtra archive that explores Elizabeth's early life, rise to power, and the legacy that made her one of England’s most iconic monarchs. Go beyond the podcast.
]]> HistoryExtra <![CDATA[Churchill’s evolving perspective on D-Day]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/churchill-d-day/ 2026-06-08T14:26:16.000Z 2026-06-06T21:10:54.000Z D-Day was one of the key episodes in the Second World War. But what did Winston Churchill make of the plans for the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France? Was, as some have suggested, the British prime minister really reluctant to get involved? And how fraught were relationships between the Allied leaders?
Speaking to Matt Elton on the HistoryExtra podcast, Richard Dannatt and Allen Packwood, authors of the book Churchill’s D-Day: The Inside Story, discuss the decisions and tensions behind the operation.
What context do we need to understand about Churchill – and Britain – in the early years of the Second World War to make sense of what was to happen in the run up to D-Day?
Richard Dannatt: The first thing to consider is the circumstances of how Churchill became prime minister in May 1940. He had recently been present at a parliamentary debate to defend a disastrous campaign in Norway that had taken place in the months beforehand. It had been Churchill’s idea to try and hobble German industry by cutting off the supply of iron ore from Sweden through Norway into Germany – and it had been a disaster. Everything you can think of that could go wrong, had gone wrong – and it’s one of the illustrated examples that we use in the British Army staff college about how not to conduct an operation. This – among other things – would continue to play on Churchill’s mind.
- Read more | Winston Churchill: is he still the greatest Briton in history?
Allen Packwood: We must remember that Churchill is not elected prime minister in May 1940. He is there, really, because of a Westminster coup to remove Neville Chamberlain.
Churchill then had to construct a national coalition government, which meant he had to put together a war cabinet containing people who – until recently – had been his rivals or political opponents. This meant he did not enter the war as prime minister in a strong position – and he had to consider carefully how he was going to respond to that.
We then had the Dunkirk evacuation, and Churchill very famously said that wars are not won by evacuations. But it must have been very clear to him – in 1940 – that the road was going to be a very long, hard one before Britain could return to France.
One of the things that has often been said to have influenced Churchill’s approach to D-Day is his experience in the First World War, specifically the Dardanelles campaign (1915–16). Do you think this is overstated?
RD: I think the Dardanelles campaign had a major impact on Churchill. He was First Lord of the Admiralty at the time, and he had come up with the campaign’s concept, which was a bold attempt to try and break the deadlock of the extended trench warfare on the Western Front. You must give him marks for trying to find a new initiative, but – and this is the sadness – although the strategic thinking might have been reasonable, the operational delivery was woeful.
There was also a huge loss of life in the Dardanelles campaign. This, in addition to the Norway campaign, sat heavily on Churchill’s mind in the run up to D-Day. I think it played very much into his overall thinking.
AP: The lesson that he took away from Dardanelles was that if you were going to attempt an operation of this scale and complexity then you needed to do it very carefully – and at the right time. You needed to make sure that you had control of all the moving parts, politically and militarily.
We tend to think of Churchill as this bellicose war leader, but actually he was keen to avoid the huge losses of life that had occurred in the First World War. This certainly influenced his strategy and thinking when it came to D-Day.
To what extent is it right to say that Churchill was sceptical of D-Day?
RD: Churchill knew at some stage that there needed to be re-entry into Europe, but he was very keen on it not being premature. So on the one hand, he was sceptical. But on the other hand, he knew it was inevitable. The big thing was to get the timing and preparation right.
AP: This idea of Churchill being sceptical about D-Day developed quite quickly after the end of the Second World War. Eisenhower, when he published his memoirs, described how at one of the big conferences in May 1944, just before D-Day, Churchill had told the gathering that he was hardening on this enterprise, which the Americans immediately took to mean that he had been soft on it up until that point.
This view has been taken up more recently in popular culture by the movie Churchill (2017). The film starts with Churchill walking on a British beach and recoiling as he has a vision of the sea running red with blood. The implication is that history is going to repeat itself; it’s going be the Dardanelles campaign all over again. The movie then proceeds to show Churchill attempting to obstruct the operation with 48 hours to go – which of course was not the case.
- Read more | Churchill: the ‘cry-baby’ war hero
Churchill was also keenly aware of this idea that he was sceptical of D-Day – and he tried to respond to it in his own war memoirs. The key point is that he always knew we were going to have to go back into France, but he knew it should only be contemplated at the right moment when all the necessary preconditions have been met (so when we had the tactical experience, expertise, strategy and equipment required for what was going to be an incredibly difficult operation).
Do we know what Churchill felt about D-Day in the run up to the day itself?
RD: I think once Churchill had agreed in his own mind that it was going to happen, then he was determined that the operation should be given the best chance of success. He leveraged his convening power as prime minister to make sure that all these different elements were in place – from technical innovations… to planning… to even putting a lockdown in place in the south of England to maintain the security of the operation.
But we know that Churchill had doubts and fears about D-Day. Hence the remark to his wife, Clemmie, the night before, in which he mentioned the possibility of enormous casualties.
AP: Another of Churchill’s big concerns in the weeks running up to D-Day was the risk of French civilian casualties.
The bombing scheme that Eisenhower and the military commanders had settled on was one that targeted the French railway system and marshalling yards. These tended to be in areas of high civilian population density.
Churchill raised this issue multiple times with the defence committee and the war cabinet. He raised it with Eisenhower and President Roosevelt. His fear was that if the French take these very large casualties, then this might turn them against the Allies.
He was also thinking of the political ramifications of this course of action, which are that in the postwar world, this might drive a wedge between Britain and France. Ultimately, of course, he didn’t overrule the military commanders, but he did everything he could to try and limit the effect of that bombing on French civilians.
What did Churchill do on 6 June itself?
AP: Churchill was in Downing Street in the Treasury Annex on the morning of D-Day, poring over the latest maps and charts and receiving the latest reports on what’s happening on the beaches. At 12 noon, he moved to the House of Commons to make his first statement. At that point, there was not much he could say; the operation was still shrouded in the fog of war and it was not clear how it was developing. So Churchill left to have lunch with the king, and then visited some of the headquarters on the outskirts of London before coming back and reporting to parliament. The really interesting fact, of course, is that this was not where Churchill wanted to be at all – he wanted to be in the centre of the action itself and had tried unsuccessfully to get himself on board a British cruiser.
What were the repercussions of D-Day? How did it affect Churchill’s relationship with, for example, the US?
RD: Churchill began to realise – once the operations ashore were fully developed – that this was now the beginning of an inevitable switch from British influence to American influence. This meant that his ability to influence subsequent military strategy and higher-level operational objectives were no longer in his control. It was no longer solely a British operation. It was a realisation that the British position was changing and that the Americans’ position of supremacy was frankly becoming a reality.
Tim Benbow at King’s College London has written that the D-Day landings showed Churchill at his best and at his worst. Is this a view that you have sympathy with?
AP: This is probably a view that I would have some sympathy with.
I think one of the things that Churchill did well – but isn’t often credited for – is the political work that he did behind the scenes in maintaining the national coalition. In the months before D-Day, he spent a lot of time preparing the country for this huge operation using the convening power of the prime minister to knock heads together, to ensure that production targets are met, to ensure that the artificial harbours needed for the operation are being built, to ensure that the right equipment and tanks are in place.
I suppose the worst of Churchill might be a certain sort of selfishness and stubbornness, which was certainly evidenced in his insistence that he wanted to accompany the troops across the channel, even though that was clearly not where he should be. I think he found the months leading up to D-Day personally very difficult because he was one of those people who liked to be at the centre of the action.
I think he also found it difficult to accept the transition to secondary status in the Anglo-American relationship.
How would you like people to understand D-Day and Churchill’s role within it?
RD: I think Churchill’s role in D-Day illustrates most effectively Britain’s role in D-Day and Britain’s role in the new Europe that was created at the end of the Second World War. Let’s face it, if D-Day had failed – and if we had not been able to defeat Nazi Germany and some kind of pact had been formed between Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union – Europe would have looked a very different place today.
- Read more | Why Churchill’s reputation is still on the line
AP: For me, it’s all about complexity and nuance. Too often when we talk about Churchill, we tend to just see that famous image of Churchill as the ‘bulldog warrior’ with his V for Victory salute and a cigar. We think of his speeches. But Churchill was an incredibly complex character; the decisions that he – and others – were taking were incredibly difficult and it’s impossible to know if they got it right. In many of these decisions, there was not one right answer, just some incredibly tough choices.
But I think if you want to understand the world that we inhabit today – and the Europe that we inhabit today – then you must understand the decisions that underpin this and got us to where we are now.
Allen Packwood is director of the Churchill Archives Centre at Churchill College in Cambridge
Richard Dannatt is former Chief of the General Staff and member of the House of Lords
This interview, originally published in 2024, was taken from an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast: D-Day: was Churchill really against the operation?
]]> HistoryExtra <![CDATA[The women’s work that made D-Day a success]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/women-d-day/ 2026-06-08T14:26:38.000Z 2026-06-06T00:10:00.000Z “I was sent with a team of other Wren officers, to a strange secret hideout in the cellars of the old Barclays hotel, where we sat down in front of huge sheets of statistics, with columns and columns of figures,” former WRNS meteorologist Paulina Nichol recalled. “And all we had to do was add the figures up.”
Nichol was talking about a particular assignment covered by the Official Secrets Act; the plan for when the invasion of Normandy, known as D-Day, would take place. Women, she says, were used “as calculators”, just one of the vital ways that women’s labour shaped the events of 1944 and beyond.
The enormous degree of planning and detailed work that made Operation Overlord and the subsequent battle for Normandy a success is rightly well-remembered, and D-Day is widely commemorated each year. Perhaps less often foregrounded is the role of women, who were involved at almost every level of the operation well before 6 June 1944 – whether as members of the Allied military services or as civilians.
More than 80 years on, it is worth delving a little deeper into the varied ways that women took part.
The women who planned D-Day
RAF Medmenham in Buckinghamshire was home to the RAF’s Central Interpretation Unit. Using photographs from reconnaissance missions, the unit constructed three-dimensional images of key targets. Between 1941 and 1944, the staff grew from 231 to over 1,700, going on to provide key intelligence reports and monitoring the railways around the Normandy area to assess the impact of bombing raids, in a bid to delay German reinforcements.
- Read more | D-Day: the spearhead of the invasion
The Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) undertook many roles at Medmenham, one being photographic interpreters, who included in their ranks Sarah Oliver – the daughter of Prime Minister Winston Churchill – and Mary Harrison, who crafted physical models of major targets, including the Normandy beaches. Precision was essential, using photographs and maps to recreate every contour and building accurately with papier mâché, plaster of Paris and lino. Mary explained: “You looked for guns and artillery and defence and they were marked usually in red… all the time you were looking for things… that the army or the landing troops could look for.”
This three-dimensional view of the beaches allowed military staff to visualise the landing site, identify landmarks and strategic goals, assess potential enemy strong-points, and plan their progress inland.
The women who trained for D-Day
When preparing to land on the beaches of Normandy, the troops had to practise with the landing craft, and training exercises were timed to the second. Margaret Seeley of the Women’s Royal Naval Service (WRNS, and officially known as the Wrens), was stationed at the signals office, HMS Squid in Southampton.
She described her role in a major exercise: “I had to cancel my leave, and I was told to go down to the Hard, which is down in the harbour, and it was the only time in the war I had to wear my tin hat.
“We had to look out the window and see every landing craft that came in, note its exact time, how long it took to load and when it sailed. And then report this over the phone back to head office,” she said. There’s a sense of their work as being essential. “I was told that when the actual thing happened, I would be able to do this job and I was thrilled.”
To Margaret’s disappointment, though, when the time came for invasion, she wouldn’t get any closer to the operation. “Towards the end of the exercise they decided it wasn’t the place for women, so I had to hand over to a naval rating, who was a young lad.
“He didn’t even know how to use a telephone and I had to show him how to do this job. I was rather disappointed, but, you know, one just obeyed orders and that was it.”
The women who prepared the landings at D-Day
After the initial invasion and once the Allies had formed a bridgehead into Normandy, gaining important territory, they installed artificial ‘Mulberry Harbours’, temporary portable harbours that allowed more troops and equipment to arrive.
Ahead of D-Day, Elizabeth Rowell was one of the many factory workers manufacturing different components of the harbours. Working in Sunderland, her job was to splice ropes. It was heavy, dirty manual work. Groups of eight women stood in a circle, winding wire coils, over and under around a cable base. They would then insert hooks and thimbles (rings) at either end. These heavy wire cables were then used to hold the Mulberry Harbours together, although many of the factory workers didn’t know this until after the war.
The woman who chose the date of D-Day
D-Day was initially earmarked for May 1944 – and meteorologists were tasked with selecting the best exact date, tracking the moon, tides and the most unpredictable element, the weather.
Wren Officer Paulina Nichol, a meteorologist, explained how it worked: “They were constantly trying to discover how best to choose the day for invasion. And this was to do with phases of the moon, it was some slightly crack-pot theory.
“This being before the days of calculators, they used us as calculators.”
Ultimately, 5 June 1944 was selected for D-Day, but with just 36 hours to go, Maureen Flavin, an Irish postal clerk in County Mayo, was the first to forecast a storm approaching from the Atlantic. As a result, D-Day was pushed back 24 hours until the weather was sufficiently improved.
The woman who fooled the Germans
To confuse the Germans, the Allies created ‘windows’ where RAF planes dropped strips of metal foil over the English Channel. This fooled German radar by giving the false impression that a large Allied fleet was sailing for the Pas de Calais area of northern France.
This technique had been devised by Joan Curran, a Welsh physicist who had been a PhD student when the war broke out.
The women codebreakers
Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes was home to Britain’s codebreakers, and over three-quarters of the staff were women.
Intercepting transmissions and breaking codes, the staff at Bletchley gathered information on enemy movements, monitoring whether deception tactics were working, and whether the Germans anticipated the Allied invasion. After 6 June, Bletchley relayed information about German counter-attacks.
The women intelligence agents
Special Operations Executive (SOE, established in 1940) deployed both male and female agents in occupied Europe, to gather intelligence and galvanise the local resistance.
Gradually, SOE occupied several buildings on Baker Street in London, with Colonel Maurice Buckmaster leading ‘F section’, overseeing agents in France. Many of the Baker Street staff were female.
Odette Brown, an officer with the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry described her role as secretary: “One of the things I did… was type out the personal messages that went out on the BBC radio, and especially the D-Day messages. I knew them by heart, which message applied to which circuit. There were two lots of messages, there were ‘A messages’ and ‘B messages’.
- Read more | Why we must remember the forgotten heroes of D-Day
Brown’s messages relayed crucial information across the network, she explained. “Now the agents had been warned as D-Day approached, they had to listen to the BBC on the 1st and 15th of every month and that if they heard the A messages, then they knew the invasion would happen within the next two weeks. So, then they had to listen daily until they heard the B message, which meant the invasion would start the next day.”
SOE agent Lise de Baissac was in her hometown of Paris when she heard the BBC broadcast. Lise had fled the German invasion, eventually arriving in London in 1941 and was recruited by SOE in May 1942. Four months later, she parachuted into occupied France and worked as a courier for her brother Claude’s network in Bordeaux, before setting up her own network in Poitiers. After a period back in England as a liaison officer training other SOE agents, Lise returned to France in April 1944 to support her brother’s new network in Normandy. “There were groups of Maquis (French resistance) and I had to pass on orders from one to the other. What my brother couldn’t do for himself, I did for him.”
- Read more | Churchill and D-Day: did the prime minister oppose the Normandy landings?
Recruiting in Paris when she heard the BBC broadcast, Lise raced back to Normandy, avoiding large German military formations. For the next three months, Lise and Claude’s network sabotaged German reinforcements and sent critical intelligence reports to the Allies.
The women who oversaw the operation
Before the days of computers, the WAAF at Fighter Command HQ at RAF Bentley Priory plotted out air force positions in real time on a large map. Overlaid with a grid, the map extended from the South of England across the Channel to the Normandy coastline. On the eve of D-Day, plotter Joan Seaman recalls how the map table was suddenly transformed:
“On the table, we plotted convoys, just a circle of card with the convoy name on it… That was all the ships going over. There was so much… the whole plotting table was just a complete mass of coloured arrows, a complete mass of it.”
As the invasion began, the female plotters marked out the Allied positions. It was fast and frantic work, but Joan remembers it as “extremely exciting… to give a complete picture of everything that was going on around the shores of the British Isles”.
Elsewhere, General Dwight D Eisenhower oversaw the Allied Invasion from Southwick House near Portsmouth.
Deep underground there, Wren Marie Scott was a radio operator, alongside other women from the WRNS, the WAAF and Auxiliary Territorial Service.
On landing day, Marie was relaying messages directly to the men on the beaches. To her alarm, the sounds of warfare filled her ears. “In my earphones, I was on the beaches of Normandy, I heard everything… Machine gun fire, cannon fire, bombs, men shouting orders, men screaming… it was the chaos of war.”
With no conflict training, the female radio operators had no preparation for this, but they had no option but to continue their work.
The women nurses of D-Day
Some of the first women to arrive in Normandy after the landings were military nurses. Amy Dunnett served with No 3 Casualty Clearing Station.
Taken out on a landing craft, Dunnett recalls nurses scrambling down the nets, wearing heavy army boots and tin hats, packs on their backs, landing on Gold Beach in mid-June. They went to a tented hospital in a field full of tall grass and flowers. “It was very primitive”, but they had to make do as casualties came in thick and fast. “I worked in the operating theatres, on one occasion working for 56 hours without a break.”
The women of D-Day, both military and civilian, played a crucial role in the Allied victory. Their tireless work contributed to the success of Operation Overlord and helped pave the way for the liberation of Europe.
Elisabeth Shipton is a military historian, television and radio documentary researcher, and author. Her books include Female Tommies: The Frontline Women of the First World War (The History Press, 2014)
]]> Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[How many US presidents have been assassinated?]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/how-many-us-presidents-have-been-assassinated/ 2026-04-27T16:15:47.000Z 2026-04-27T15:29:02.000Z It’s not every day that a sitting president gets assassinated, but when it happens, the implications are felt across the entire country, often for decades. In the United States, four sitting presidents have been killed in office, while others have survived attempts on their lives.
Who were the US presidents assassinated while serving, how did those attacks unfold, and which presidents lived through assassination attempts?
How many US presidents have been assassinated?
Four sitting US presidents have been assassinated:
- Abraham Lincoln in 1865
- James A Garfield in 1881
- William McKinley in 1901
- John F Kennedy in 1963
Each of these assassinations sent shockwaves through the nation, leading to significant political and security changes. But how did they happen?
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln
On 14 April 1865, President Abraham Lincoln, fresh from steering the country through the Civil War, was enjoying a play at Ford’s Theatre in Washington DC. During the performance, John Wilkes Booth, a Confederate sympathiser and well-known actor, snuck into Lincoln’s private box and shot the president in the back of the head at point-blank range.
Booth had initially planned only to kidnap Lincoln, but after the president had floated an idea to offer African-Americans the vote, he had decided upon a different, more deadly direction. What followed was a wild 12-day manhunt, ending when Booth was cornered and killed by Union soldiers in a barn in Virginia.
But why did the noted actor want to kill Lincoln?
In November 1860, Lincoln had won the presidential election with the anti-slavery Republican Party and became the 16th president of the United States. By the following year, 11 southern states had seceded to form the Confederate States of America, who wanted to preserve their slave-based economy. This kickstarted the American Civil War.
Four years of bitter fighting effectively came to an end on 9 April 1865 when Confederate General Robert E Lee surrendered his troops to Union General Ulysses S Grant at Appomattox Court House in Virginia.
Booth – who was on the side of the Confederate States of America in the South – was not impressed. He believed that Lincoln had ignited the conflict by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed enslaved people in the South. He also disagreed with Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, which saw the president introduce the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery entirely.
In assassinating Lincoln, Booth sought revenge for the South’s defeat in the Civil War and believed that he could inspire a resurgence of the Confederate cause. He was part of a wider group of conspirators who had also planned to assassinate Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward, but these attempts failed.
While Lincoln’s assassination was successful, his death did not achieve Booth’s goal of reviving the Confederate cause. It did, however, derail post-war Reconstruction efforts and delay progress on civil rights for the formerly enslaved.
- Read more | How Abraham Lincoln’s 1860 election victory set America on the path to Civil War
The assassination of James A Garfield
Less than 20 years after the death of Lincoln, another president was assassinated. President James A Garfield was almost four months into his term when he was shot at a train station in Washington DC, on 2 July 1881. The culprit? Charles J Guiteau, a failed lawyer harbouring a hefty grudge.
Historical accounts suggest that Guiteau lived with severe mental illness, and he believed he deserved a political appointment in Garfield’s administration. When his requests were ignored, he saw assassination as a means to elevate Vice President Chester A Arthur – a staunch supporter of the ‘spoils system’, where government jobs were awarded based on political connections rather than merit – to the presidency, thinking it would benefit his own ambitions.
This thinking was in vain. After shooting Garfield, Guiteau was quickly apprehended, convicted of murder and hanged on 30 June 1882, after a highly publicised trial.
Garfield’s death led to the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, which reduced corruption by implementing a merit-based system for government positions, rather than patronage.
- Read more | 6 shocking presidential scandals that rocked the White House
The assassination of William McKinley
On 6 September 1901, President William McKinley was greeting the public at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York, when self-proclaimed anarchist Leon Czolgosz shot him twice at close range.
McKinley survived the initial shooting, but developed gangrene from his wounds and died on 14 September. Czolgosz was arrested at the scene. He was convicted of murder and executed in the electric chair on 29 October 1901.
Czolgosz’s attack had been inspired by anarchist rhetoric; he viewed McKinley as the poster boy of corporate greed and oppression. By assassinating the president, he believed he could strike a blow against both the government and capitalism as a whole.
McKinley’s assassination had an immediate political impact, in that it propelled the more moderate and reformist Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency. But it did not lead to the political upheaval or societal change that the self-confessed anarchist likely desired. After McKinley’s death, Congress was inspired to take a closer look at how presidents were protected – and assigned the Secret Service to do the job.
- Read more | Life after the White House: what the US presidents did next
The assassination of John F Kennedy
Where were the Secret Service on 22 November 1963? It’s a question at the heart of one of modern history’s greatest conspiracies.
It was on this day that President John F Kennedy was shot twice, as his motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. He was rushed to Parkland Memorial Hospital, but was pronounced dead shortly afterward.
Within hours of the shooting, 24-year-old former US marine Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee at the Texas School Book Depository – which overlooked Dealey Plaza – was apprehended at a nearby cinema. Witnesses had reportedly seen him fatally shoot a police officer.
Some have argued that Oswald was merely a scapegoat – a claim he himself made while in custody – or that he was not the sole assassin behind the attack on Kennedy.
The murder of Oswald two days after Kennedy’s assassination and before a trial, by local nightclub owner Jack Ruby, only intensified the rumours.
A number of conspiracy theories emerged: some suggested that the plot was orchestrated either by the mafia, angered by the Kennedy administration’s efforts to combat organised crime and its inability to topple Fidel Castro. Others pinned the crime on US intelligence and security agencies, notably the CIA and FBI, aiming to derail the president’s purported plan to withdraw America from the Vietnam War.
As investigative journalist Gerald Posner explains, Ruby’s murder of Oswald “is what really robs us of knowing what happened in detail” and is “why the case will never be closed”.
“Within 48 hours, people are wondering, ‘what happened?’,” says Posner, who was speaking to us for an episode of our History’s Greatest Conspiracies Theories podcast series. "Then the Warren Commission [established by JFK’s successor, Lyndon B Johnson, to investigate the events of 22 November 1963] comes out a year later with its massive report, and most people don’t like the idea of a government commission to decide what happened on a big controversial historical area.”
The official conclusion of the Warren Commission was that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. However, Oswald’s motives remain the subject of intense debate.
- Read more | The JFK assassination attempt you’ve never heard of
Which US presidents have survived assassination attempts?
While four presidents were killed in office, several others came perilously close to sharing their fate. Each attempt speaks to the vulnerabilities of being elected to the world’s most visible political office.
The seven sitting US presidents who survived assassination attempts:
Andrew Jackson: An assassin attempted to shoot Jackson at point-blank range in 1835, but both of his pistols misfired. Jackson then attacked the would-be assassin with his cane.
Theodore Roosevelt: While campaigning for a third term in 1912, Roosevelt was shot in the chest.
Franklin D Roosevelt: An attempted assassination by Giuseppe Zangara in 1933 failed when his shots missed Roosevelt but killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak.
Harry S Truman: In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to storm Blair House, where Truman was staying; one was killed, and the other was arrested.
Gerald Ford: Two separate assassination attempts were made on Ford within 17 days in 1975, one by Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and another by Sara Jane Moore.
Ronald Reagan: John Hinckley Jr shot Reagan in 1981, wounding him and three others. The president recovered.
More recently, Donald Trump survived assassination attempts near Butler, Pennsylvania (July 2024) and in West Palm Beach, Florida (September 2024), although these occurred in between Trump’s two presidential terms.
]]> Kev Lochun <![CDATA[Inside a Roman villa: luxury life in ancient Britain]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/chedworth-roman-villa-video/ 2026-04-03T09:58:04.000Z 2026-04-03T09:57:50.000Z Step into one of the grandest Roman homes ever discovered in Britain, and explore the secret luxuries of Roman Britain, as we head inside Chedworth Roman Villa in Gloucestershire, now in the care of the National Trust.
HistoryExtra’s Rachel Dinning and Kev Lochun introduce the underfloor heating, fine mosaics and elegant rooms that reveal the surprising luxury of life in Roman Britain.
You’ll hear how this countryside retreat functioned, who lived here, and what it tells us about wealth, identity and culture under Roman rule.
With thanks to all at Chedworth Roman Villa
View Green Video on the source website ]]> Rachel Dinning <![CDATA[Elizabeth I | Podcast series]]> https://www.historyextra.com/period/elizabethan/elizabeth-i-podcast-series/ 2026-05-08T17:10:14.000Z 2026-03-20T12:25:49.000Z Rachel Dinning is joined by historian Nicola Tallis to explore Elizabeth I’s life and reign, from her turbulent early years to her enemies and suitors, to her final 'Golden Age'. Listen to all episodes now, and go beyond the podcast with our curated reading list.
]]> Dr Owen Emmerson <![CDATA[Inside Hever Castle: explore Anne Boleyn’s childhood home]]> https://www.historyextra.com/membership/inside-hever-castle-anne-boleyn-childhood-home-video/ 2026-03-20T10:44:09.000Z 2026-03-20T09:50:03.000Z In this episode, HistoryExtra’s Rachel Dinning and Lauren Good step inside the childhood home of Anne Boleyn, the woman who would captivate Henry VIII, reshape the English monarchy, and ultimately meet a tragic end.
Joined by castle historian and assistant curator Dr Owen Emmerson, we explore Boleyn’s life, from her early years at Hever to her rise at court – a story one of ambition, intelligence, and extraordinary influence. She played a central role in the break with Rome, paving the way for the English Reformation – yet as you’ll hear, her position was always precarious.
What was Anne really like? How did her upbringing shape her? And how did she rise so quickly – only to fall so dramatically?
Through the rooms and surroundings of Hever Castle, this video brings us closer to the real Anne Boleyn, and her tightrope existence as a woman navigating power, politics and survival in the Tudor court.